From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Fifth Element]

Does there have to be contention to muse and publicly discuss the latest snip of info given to us from the designers shaping the future of our favorite RPG?

The main direction of this thread appears to be discussion concerning the assertion that the designers should not have even considered trying to implement an "aggro" system for D&D.

If your post was not related to the assertion, I apologize. I read your conclusion that such a system for D&D would be unworkable as supporting the "they should have known it wouldn't work and therefore shouldn't have even tried" camp.

 

[Driddle]

Does there have to be contention to muse and publicly discuss the latest snip of info given to us from the designers shaping the future of our favorite RPG?

Here here! Bravo.
Discussion for discussion's sake.

 

[SSquirrel]

Is collision detection really that hard? Guild Wars doesn't seem to have any problem with it, and they don't even have monthly fees from all their players to support their server expenses. Player-griefing is easily solved by letting players not hostile to each other pass through each other.

Of course, the main reason people seem to want collision detection is immersiveness. Allowing your allies to pass thru you like that just serves to break that immersiveness. May as well not have collision detection. Most of Guild Wars happens within instances too, there are few times you have to worry about running into enemies. Especially considering you can just open your map and whisk yourself somewhere else*

*Been ages since I've been in GW, I know that was how it worked at one point, assume it still does

 

[Zweischneid]

The main direction of this thread appears to be discussion concerning the assertion that the designers should not have even considered trying to implement an "aggro" system for D&D.

If your post was not related to the assertion, I apologize. I read your conclusion that such a system for D&D would be unworkable as supporting the "they should have known it wouldn't work and therefore shouldn't have even tried" camp.

Well, I would agree that it was a pretty foolish thing to try out. After all, "aggro" is a (more or less) imperfect substitute used most commonly by computer games to get around the fact that there isn't a "real intelligence" controlling the players opponents.

Since Pen&Paper are however defined by and large by the presence of a GM taking control of the players opponents, I can see why many people have been perplexed by the choice of the playtesters to spend time on that.

So no, I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things.

Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .

So I guess, I do fall in that "camp" you describe there in some regards. However, already by labeling it a "camp", you forgo looking at the variety of arguments brought against the idea of including an "aggro" mechanism, which is already vast indeed in this one thread alone.

Besides that, I wasn't aware my "camp" was under contention As you noted, the designers ultimately agreed with me!

 

[ZappoHisbane]

Considering that the MMORPG playing population absolutely dwarfs RPG's, and that even people who don't play MMORPG's understand the term, I'm not really sure that using it is a bad idea. Yes, there are a couple of people in this thread who've asked, but, then, I believe that English was not their first language (and I truly appologise if I'm wrong there).

Apology grudgingly accepted. I even tried looking the term up on Dictionary.com and Wikipedia without much luck as to how it applied to MMORPGs. So thanks to whoever it was that beat me to the punch and asked for a definition. I wonder if his first language was English? Should it matter?

 

[Fifth Element]

Besides that, I wasn't aware my "camp" was under contention As you noted, the designers ultimately agreed with me!

No, because one of the defining characteristics of said camp is the idea that the designers should not have even tried it, which they obviously disagree with. If you do agree with that, then you are not in the camp I mentioned.

Remember that there is no reason for there to be only two camps. There could be dozens, each with its own point of view.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

You must have missed how he used the term "aggro," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.

That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.

The one thing that I think that most of the Anti-MMO zealots tend to overlook is that like them or not, there are more variants of such games that have come out than there have been of D&D. On top of that, many of those games have a player base that vastly outnumbers the player base of D&D. Lastly, the mechanics in those games get iterated on much more quickly than D&D.

The constant try-test-tweak cycle that such games bring to these ideas, and the basic fact that games that suck tend to go out of business, means that the ideas that stick around are generally worth considering. Just because something shows up in an MMO before it shows up in D&D does not mean that the idea ought to be rejected outright.

I like the idea that the Knight class tried, a class focused on making itself the target for the benefit of the team. Of course, as Mearls pointed out, everyone farted pretty hard on the idea of a compulsion mechanic based on a non magical effect. However, the one thing that D&D does make difficult is the flavour text of the crunch has a huge effect on how it is likely to be accepted by the player base.

The Knight class gets alot of heat for having some crunch that does not match the flavour, despite it being some pretty decent crunch. I would hate to see D&D's 4th edition get crapped on just because some people get annoyed at the thought of a certain flavour that they do not like despite it fitting quite decently with the crunch.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Driddle]

I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things.

Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does, however, leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .

I agree.
The inappropriateness of converting an AI-programmed "aggro" system for brain-piloted DMs should have been obvious *before* testing it.

 

[megamania]

Is this or bad?

Reading the beginning thread there is concern on whom the creatures / foes should attack first. There are rules about this but those were the first things I tossed out as a DM. It becomes predictable otherwise.

Smarter foes should think about the powers of mages at a range, fighters up close etc.

Otherwise- I think about NPC background. racial hatreds or underestimations (for for the halflings- they are small and easy to kill)


I did see one comment about new DMs and experienced ones so I suppose this does play into it.

 

[SSquirrel]

I agree.
The inappropriateness of converting an AI-programmed "aggro" system for brain-piloted DMs should have been obvious *before* testing it.

So it also should have been obvious to Gary and Co back in the 70s that morale was obviously wrongbadfun and should not have been included as it just took away the DMs ability to decide how long a monster should fight?

There are many people in this thread who don't feel that it was "obviously" a bad idea to try out. If you never try out new things, what is the point of revising a game? I think having some guiding actions for morale aspects as well as some combat preferences in the MM is the better choice for D&D. I have known many people who were brand new to running things and I can imagine that an actual aggro system in D&D would have helped them get into th swing of things a bit faster. Run with the aggro system in place for awhile, get a feel for how combat should flow, then ignore aggro and follow your instincts. Not everyone has very clear thoughts about how combat should go the first time they run.

Remember, the new edition isn't being published just for the people who have always played, it's being made for all teh people who will also be new to the hobby. The point of the game, at least probably in Hasbro's mind, is to sell to more people, get a wider userbase, keep bringing in more money all the time. I like the idea of more people joining us in this hobby, so getting rid of things that don't make sense is great. 3E got rid of race/class restrictions and racial level limits b/c they were just dumb. Got rid of the whole "what do you mean my human guy can't be a mage/thief?" or "what do you mean I can't go past L12? I'm gonna live to be 700!?!"


Oh yeah and teh reason all monsters don't automatically charge the mage or healer every time is that it gets really old and those classes would feel like they were being picked on and POOF, people decide to neevr play those classes.